Biblical Astronomy - Fine tuning during creation of earth and environment -

[mooware]

Gallileo was a bright man. ...and his religion condemned him to die for it.<br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

Calli- Hi! <br /><br />I'm on vacation in N.Y. and must be brief on a friend's computer. <br /><br /> Luck is not what I was referencing. Math is the key. Chemical reaction proportions are mathematical proportions, and probability is demonstrated to be valid in chemistry experiments, including origin of life simulations.<br /><br />For example, which amino acids form in which environments and in what proportions. <br /><br />To be brief: the highest number of possible chemical reaction products in our universe since our universe began, an upper limit, would be about 10^122. That is a product of the age of the universe in seconds, the fastest possible reaction rate (slower than 10^24 per second) and the mass of the universe - about 10^79 amu (atomic mass units). <br /><br />Then you need to calculate approximate probabilities for possible pathways to life, for example starting with HCN and going to amino acids as one pathway.<br /><br />So, it is not so simple as whether it was luck or design. It is more specific and complex.<br /><br />So - why would you believe life evolved chemically - aka chemical evolution? <br /><br />Do you have some mathematical basis for this belief in chemical evolution?<br /><br />One could say life evolved to fit the earth or the earth was fine tuned to fit life. One could say anything. <br /><br />However, what factual basis would you give for the former? <br /><br />When I get back from vacation I will post additional facts in support of the latter. <br /><br />However, a tidbit: It has been calculated that the probability of a statistical protein forming by chance would be about one to 10^113. What rate and density of protein would this probability predict in our universe?<br /><br />One protein per year, but in different galaxies each year?

 

[newtonian]

Tiza - Thank you - I am on vacation and will get back to you when I get back.<br /><br />Sorry I didn't say fare well before I left.<br /><br />You all - please be patient since I do intend to respond kindly to you all in about a week or so.<br /><br />Also, Tiza - you are correct about me and thank you again.

 

[mkofron]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>To be brief: the highest number of possible chemical reaction products in our universe since our universe began, an upper limit, would be about 10^122. That is a product of the age of the universe in seconds, the fastest possible reaction rate (slower than 10^24 per second) and the mass of the universe - about 10^79 amu (atomic mass units).<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Are these numbers based on chemical reactions occuring serially or in parallel?<br /><br />How would you compare these numbers to the odds you came about?<br /><br />The average number of sperm per ejaculation is 280 million. Calculate that by the number of times every male in your lineage up to "Adam" ejaculated. Then figure in other variables such as number of eggs produced along the way as well,... etc... etc <br /><br />I'm not capable of calculating such odds, but you came about by chance. No God played a direct role in your creation.<br />

 

[newtonian]

mkofron- Serial or in paralel? It includes both of course.<br /><br />Yes, chance plays a role, of course. This is confirmed in the Bible:<br /><br />(Ecclesiastes 9:11-12) 11 I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all. 12 For man also does not know his time. Just like fishes that are being taken in an evil net, and like birds that are being taken in a trap, so the sons of men themselves are being ensnared at a calamitous time, when it falls upon them suddenly.<br /><br />Note that time and unforseen occurence befall us all. The context is about death, but you are correct in indicating it also applies to birth - albeit to a lesser extent.<br /><br />However, it is not all chance - I trust you realize that.<br /><br />Often intelligent direction (and misdirection) are involved, and there are limits and probabilities based on scientific laws and properties.<br /><br />This is also true in chemical reactions, which is why there are predictable mathematical proportions of certain amino acids in origin of life synthesis experiments (e.g. Miller's famous experiments).<br /><br />Did you realize that?<br /><br />BTW - I'm just back and tired but will respond more after catching up on sleep after the 24 hour drive!

 

[newtonian]

Bump for blass - Another example of my use of probability in SDC.

 

[eagledare]

No, unless your a pagan, why would you believe that "nature" has any intelligence whatsoever?<br /><br />How does a tree know winter is coming and it must get rid of it's leaves and sap else it will freeze up and die.

 

[phenobarbara]

One sentence in a post could be reworded to say: "There is very little astronomy in the Bible." This is true; it's not a science textbook. However, when it touches on science, it is scientific. <br /><br />There's an interesting book that delves deeply into the subject at hand called "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe", by Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee. Their hypothesis states that earth is unique in the universe and they base this on several factors:<br /><br />1. Right distance from star (habitat for complex life; liquid water near surface; far enough to avoid tidal lock)<br />2. Right mass of star (long enough lifetime; not too much ultraviolet)<br />3. Stable planetary orbits (giant planets do not create orbital chaos)<br />4. Right planetary mass (retain atmosphere and ocean; enough heat for plate tectonics; solid/molten core)<br />5. Jupiter-like neighbor (clear out comets and asteroids; not too close, not too far)<br />6. A Mars (small neighbor as possible life source to seed Earth-like planet if needed)<br />7. Plate tectonics (carbon dioxide-silicate thermostat; build up land mass; enhance biotic diversity; enable magnetic field)<br />8. Ocean (not too much, not too little)<br />9. Large moon (right distance; stabilizes tilt)<br /> <br />Note that they don't argue that life is rare, only that compl ex life (animals and plants) is rarer than many have assumed.

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">Their hypothesis states that earth is unique in the universe and they base this on several factors: </font><br /><br />This is really more speculation than anything else. They are basing thier entire hypothesis that complex life is rare using on a handful of planets. It's impossible at this point, to know if complex life is rare or not. <br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

Blass - First, note your point about probability not having a memory is very important. It is precisely why origin of life simulation experiments (without significant investigator interference, aka intelligent design) do not progress far up the ladder of steps from stable chemicals to statistical proteins. Note also that a statistical protein is NOT an informational protein (informational proteins are necessary for life.).<br /><br />You seem to be ignoring the law of large numbers, as in your lotto example where too small a number was involved to give any strength to this law. In origin of life one needs an incredibly large number of trials, and the law of large numbers does apply, especially since many steps are involved, quite different from lotto where only one step or event is involved.<br /><br />Remember, also, that lotto is indeed intelligently designed - it is like a random mutation on an informational template. The informational template already limits the possible results and therefore increases the probability of success. (E.g. the lotto ticket is an informational template, the selectors are also intelligent and able to read and/or translate the information. Also there is a mechanism in place to act on the information - comparable to configurational entropy plus work in thermodynamics.<br /><br />This is why life can produce proteins that are so improbable by chance - informational direction, and complex molecules able to read the information, and complex mechanisms able to act on the information.<br /><br /> And why have you assumed I was posting a creationist argument, rather than one with important facets original to me?<br /><br />I have not assumed there is only one combination that works. I have not even stated how popular estimates of probabilities for specific chemical reaction products are arrived at in enough detail - yet.<br /><br />However, you should note that much actual laboratory study has been done by many good scientists trying to produce v